I don't see what the big deal is (I mean the anti-gay marriage issue). Why do people care what two consenting adults want to do behind closed doors? Not only that but people say that god wouldn't want it that way... Well if you really believe that then those people will have to oneday answer to god so let them worry about it.

yeah, well since massachusetts legalized it (once the "Bay State" now we're the "Gay State") the sky hasn't fallen and the world hasn't collapsed in on itself, so i dont think legalizing it was such a bad thing now, dont think?

I find it amusing that alot of men are against gay marriage yet they are all for two women...well I will keep it clean but you know what I am getting at.....

I think it is what gets the hormones pumping, little head doing the thinking so to speak.

Although, from a purely biological Darwinian point of view, hetero males should be happy that there are homosexual males - that is less competitiion for passing their genes down to the next generation.

Maybe it's just coincidence, but ... at least in the USA, the Religious Right is the main leader of the fight against homosexuality. Darwinianly speaking, one must wonder if there is some reason they are not looking out for their own genetic interests.

The religious right has the same problem all Godly people do: they assume they know what God thinks and that they're entitled to act as His agents (or enforcers in this case) on Earth. That has to be the ultimate vanity, and isn't there something in the Bible about that?

The religious right has the same problem all Godly people do: they assume they know what God thinks and that they're entitled to act as His agents (or enforcers in this case) on Earth. That has to be the ultimate vanity, and isn't there something in the Bible about that?

That's cool that California legalized gay marriages. I have a brother in law who is gay.....my husband's younger brother, Jay, and this doesn't bother me. Good for California. Oh, by the way.............Jay is one of the BEST waiters in town..........par excellent!!!!

No doubt among others, I've noticed that since that California decision came down all those Republicans who were such fervent advocates of "states' rights" because they don't like the power of federal government are starting to look a lot more fondly at Washington, or at least the Supreme Court. So here we go.... :-/

Don't get too excited! This decision was made by the California Supreme Court (in a 4 to 3 ruling). So, guess what, not everyone had such a great reaction to the court "abandoning its role as an objective interpreter of the law and instead legislating from the bench." So, the decision will go to the people.

The November ballot will include a constitutional amendment limiting marriage to unions between men and women. So if more than half of California voters approve the measure, it could neutralize last month's state Supreme Court ruling.

While I AGREE with the decision of the court, I'm not sure if I agree with how it was done. The Judicial branch is supposed to INTERPRET the laws, not make them.

From the LA Times:The three dissenting justices argued that it was up to the electorate or the Legislature to decide whether gays should be permitted to marry.

"In my view, California should allow our gay and lesbian neighbors to call their unions marriage," Justice Carol A. Corrigan wrote in the first sentence of her dissent.

"But I, and this court, must acknowledge that a majority of Californians hold a different view and have explicitly said so by their vote. This court can overrule a vote of the people only if the Constitution compels us to do so. Here, the Constitution does not."

Justice Marvin R. Baxter, joined by Justice Ming W. Chin, said the ruling "creates the opportunity for further judicial extension of this perceived constitutional right into dangerous territory."

"Who can say that in 10, 15 or 20 years, an activist court might not rely on the majority's analysis to conclude, on the basis of a perceived evolution in community values, that the laws prohibiting polygamous and incestuous marriages were no longer constitutionally justified?" Baxter wrote.

Okay, Baxter's probably being an alarmist here, but he makes a valid point. If you can look at it objectively, without any agenda getting in the way. Anyway, I say leave it to the people to decide. I have faith in my fellow Californians! I think...

Hmmm, interesting. I have to say that while I agree with gay marriage I think that everything should be put to a fair vote. I have a hard time believing that the Republican vote in Cali is very large, though. So it will all probably work out for the best.

All I can say is, i'm glad I dont live in Massachusetts or California. Sorry, just dont believe in it.

But how would it affect you if gay marriage would be legalized in your state? And if you don't believe in something doesn't mean you can't tolerate it, right?

Maybe the thought of two men having sex seems disgusing to you but well... The thought of people over 70 having sex doesn't seem like a very pretty picture to me either, but you won't hear me say that people over 70 shouldn't be allowed to be married...